Pet Cloning - Page 2

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Steve Schuler on 31 August 2010 - 06:08

Nice Post, Daryl!

SteveO

by Steve Schuler on 31 August 2010 - 06:08

double post deleted

by Myracle on 31 August 2010 - 07:08

Thus far, cloned animals have had severe [compared to the expected degree, age of onset and frequency of diseases for their breed] health problems, and live far shorter lives than the animals they were cloned from.

Scientific ethics aside, you have to wonder if its not cruel solely on the merits of producing animals that you know are likely going to develop health issues at a higher rate than non-clones.
A bit like breeding animals you know damned well are passing on severe genetic problems that negatively impact the dog's quality or longevity of life.

by darylehret on 31 August 2010 - 11:08

The claims against health and longevity are purely anti-clone supporter's propaganda. There was for example someone directly involved and closely monitoring the Dolly sheep project that stated none of those claims were true, but the myths are still being perpetuated throughout the media. So, in an effort to deter science and mislead the general public, lies are spread, and that kind of misinformation is always then paired with questions about the morals and perils of cloning, (your first clue it's a non-scientist's words). Ask yourself, why should the dna of a clone be any less healthy, if it were only a replica of another healthy organism? Early aging and susceptibility to disease? Where's the documented scientific proof? There is none.

by Arnies Dad on 31 August 2010 - 14:08

darylehret

Though i have very limited knowledge in the science behind cloning would widespread use / acceptance of pet cloning not decrease genetic diversity? In Pedigree dog breeds could this decrease in diversity inadvertantly increase the occurance of certain unwanted genetic characteristics / illnesses.? Obviously I mean in regard to a breeds long-term development and not necessarily in the clone itself.

Please understand i am genuinely asking your opinion regarding this and this post isnt intended to be pointed in any way

.

With regard to the ethics behind cloning etc i think a persons outlook on this issue is no doubt largely dictated by their religious outlook or scientific beliefs, I dont really think there is a right or wrong answer so to speak.

Kindest Regards,

Chris,

by darylehret on 31 August 2010 - 17:08

would widespread use / acceptance of pet cloning not decrease genetic diversity?

In Pedigree dog breeds could this decrease in diversity inadvertantly increase the occurance of certain unwanted genetic characteristics / illnesses.?

Obviously I mean in regard to a breeds long-term development and not necessarily in the clone itself.

Yes, and yes, if multiple people were cloning the same dog, in a similar manner that VA1 or WUSV champs are so proliferately bred as they are today, and assuming they carry something undesireable. It depends on the frequency or percentage of population that cloning would assume, and equally on the culling of entire non-cloned bloodlines from further use.

But you have to keep in mind also, that "genetic diversity" is not a magical solution to trouble free health. It's the procrastinator's answer, and even allows for further unforseen negative developments to occur and spread widely, so that new problems are unable to be addressed efficiently early on. Narrowing the genepool with carriers of non-deleterious genes and purging a breed of illness carriers is much more possible with linebreeding on a single producer, or it's "clones".

by Fluffy2 on 31 August 2010 - 20:08

*Full Disclosure* I work for Fluffy 2.0—a company that offers pet DNA storage for future cloning. I agree with some of the prior posts that cloning is currently an expensive an inexact endeavor. However, the technology is improving rapidly and historically costs have been falling in half every 24 months or so. Cloning is, and probably always will be, an emotionally charged and personal issue. We don't do the cloning procedure itself, and we understand that cloning is not for everybody, but we believe that pet owners should have that personal choice. Fluffy 2.0 offers a service to store your pet's DNA safely and inexpensively for decades so that if, in the future, you decide you might want to have your pet cloned at least you have that option. It is true that environment and upbringing play a big role in the personality and temperament of a pet but genes play a big roll too. There is no guarantee that you will get an exact duplicate with a clone of your pet, but if you have a pet with wonderful traits, you may as well start with a big leg up on getting the same traits with an exact copy of their DNA.

by jc.carroll on 31 August 2010 - 22:08

One of my passions is herpetology. On some island locales, the reptiles there arrived by swimming or getting washed up on the shore. They are so genetically similar as to be natural clones. I mean, at the genetic level, they are closer related that brother and sister, or parent and child, yet they do quite well.

Back to the dogs: Genetic diversity is a good thing in captive and controlled breeding populations, in my opinion. I think it allows breeders to select potential mates based on their perceptions of ideal fitness... which not everyone agrees on. Factor in some kennel blindness, and well, yeah... problems.

In the wild, genetic diversity is not as important because individuals that suffer from a gene combination resulting in something deterimental are less apt to have a chance to survive and reproduce. I've heard dysplasia is unknown in wolves; but then again a lame or crippled wolf wouldn't last very long on his own. Natural selection is the most efficient method of chosing the best specimens *grins* and if that means the resultant population are pretty much each others' twins, so be it.

Lack of genetic diversity is only bad when a conditon or disease arises that the current population isn't immune to -- or isparticularly susceptible to. Lack of genetic diversity means a greater chance for population decimation if the environment fluxuates in a way not compatible with the current population.

Koalas are a mammal species that are all practically (genetically) identical to one another, as I understand it. I heard, but I can't be sure this is true, that Koala DNA is so similar it cannot be used to identify individuals from one another.

by beetree on 01 September 2010 - 00:09

Some risks to consider:

Lifespans can be variable, Dolly the sheep was short-lived.

learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/cloning/cloningrisks/

by Myracle on 01 September 2010 - 01:09

Dolly lived half the expected life of a sheep her breed, and was destroyed because she developed severe arthritis, uncommon to her breed.

Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top

Pet Cloning - Page 2

Pedigree Database